The Arkansaw traveler., 1887-12-03
WHAT IS GENIUS i?

the answer IS more doubtful than It IS to this: What is genius? Infinite in variety as human nature itself are the replies that have been given to the query; yet for scientific definition the world still waits and will proba- bly, continue to wait to the end of all things. But the question has at least this merit, the response, if it be genu- inc, reveals ill an extraordinary man. ner the character of the person inter- rogated. If he will but give you the real thought of his heart on this point, you can tell at once to what order of minds he belongs; whether to the contemplative or the imaginative, the purely intellectual or the plainly practical. In an instant, by the talis- manic use of three words, half the na- ture of a man hitherto unknown to you is opened to your view. Never was there devised in the realms of fic- tion or discovered ill the domain of fact a more magic touchstone than this simple inquiry; for according to the idiosyncrasy of each individual, so will the answer be.
 Ask the man of unresting energy, whose god is labor, with whom to live is to work (there arc such people,, and he will tell you, like Carlyle, that genius is an infinite capacity for talk ing pains. Ask the idealist, who holds with Aristotle that contemplation is the highest good, and he will pro- claim in language more or less sub Timely obscure, that genius is an ema- nation from the unseen, the voice of eternity speaking in time, link with divinity-a something breathed into the soul by the Deity himself. Turn to the business like, sensible being, and you will probably hear that what is meant by genius is large general ca- pacity, especially turned in a particu- lar direction. Supposing that, still unsatisfied, you have recourse to the ablcst man of your acquaintance-the proud possessor, perhaps, of the most useful of all things, we'll balanced mind-you will probably be taught hy him, as by the late Sir Henry Fay Tor, that the true constituents of gen jus are an ardent and atiiuent imagin- ation and a powerful reasoning fac ulty. Lastly, if in despair of these differences of opinion among the wise, you determine to find out what is the popular verdict upon the subject, you will soon discover the common creed to be that genius is synonymous with success.
 Is there, then, no hope in the mat ter? Is it utterly futile to search for trued definition, seeing that in such quest each inquirer is involuntarily biased one way or the other by the in- herent force of his own personality2 If it be impossible to decide what genius is, at least we can do this much |: we can clear the ground by decid- ing what it is not. Genius, for instance, is not force of char acter, though 1t is often confused with it; for immense force of char acter is sometimes found in men whose intellectual parts are but slightly developed. Neither is it identical with extreme earnestness, or noble enthusiasm constraining the person possessed by it to action of an heroic kind; for, under such infiu- ences, or the impelling force of some overpowering idea, great and memo rable things have often been done in the world by people to whom to att tribute the quality of which we treat would be absurd. A good illustration of this distinction is furnished by Mr. Kinglake in his description of the two Russians to whom the glory of the defense of Sebastopol is chiefly due. Of these he says that one-the gallant admiral who was killed in the bombardment-had "soul;" the other -Todleben, the engineer-the inspi- ration of genius" It is exactly a case in point. With either great heart or great brain one can do much, as we are told by Lord Bea- consfield in "Tancred ;a but when they are united then mankind has to acknowledge it's king.
 But if this incomprehensihle endow- ment is not to be confounded with the motlve- forces we have mentioned, equal care must be taken not to look upon 1t as equivalent to power of ex- pression. To dealers in words express ions seem to stand in much the same relation that execution does to a painter; but if we wish to determine whether genius be present in their work, in both instances it is necessary tc look through the outward embodi- ment of their thought to the thought itself. We sometimes find, in mod ern literature, that this original con- ception has been expanded by a gor- geous diction until-like the frog who burst in the vain attempt to swell himself to the size of the built threatens to explode altogether.
 Having advanced thus far, we are still confronted with our unsolved problem If genius is not the same as